Too Short a Post for this Topic about Love
Preface:
I don't like to write posts like this for two reasons. First, I don't want to start an argument, because I hate to see my friends who disagree with me be wrong. Second, it's personal and it's something I care about. Basically, this type of post makes me feel vulnerable, which is diametrical to my contrived online persona - Joe Cool.
But, this blog is supposed to force me to write and force me to share. This post might make me less cool (just kidding, everyone knows I'm the coolest), but I'm taking risks. So, here it is.
At this point, the football analogy breaks down. Football is a game. Politics are supposed to be real life. The problem is, they aren't. I'm not here to advocate for one side or the other. I've become quite cynical, and really don't care too much about the winner. I think the power of the president is overstated and a distraction. However, the toll of politics is real. I'm not talking about skyrocketing national debt, tough decisions on entitlements, education spending, or social justice issues. I am, however, talking about the way we talk about each other.
Put simply, we have gotten mean, as a society. Part of the blame (but not all of it) goes to the two party system, polarizing us, teaching us the other side is out to get us. Frightening ads put out by both sides make us seriously afraid that the stakes are perhaps higher than they really are. Our campaigners are teaching us that everything is at stake. All the time. In every election. It's an old rhetorical tool. When I was in speech and debate, we called it the "parade of horribles." To make the other side look bad, you parade before the judge, everything bad that will happen if the other side wins. It's really effective, and it's been adopted by all the persuaders - the news media in particular.
But, only some of the blame belongs with the system. A good portion of it is on our shoulders. So what have we done? We have started to make it personal. Hillary is a liar. She is "crooked." She is a cold blooded killer. Trump is a sociopath. He is a loon. He is a buffoon. He is a misogynist. He is a racist. It goes on and on. The problem is, that the parties have done such a good job diving up the nation, we are now starting to really believe the other party is our enemy.
I want to talk about racists. Racism is bad. It is an accepted truth in our culture. It was accepted, not by scientific proof, but by shame. We, as a nation, are ashamed by the acts of racists in the past, and as a result, racism has become taboo. I'm not here to argue that racism is good. Our society has made the right call. Racism is stupid and counterproductive. But what about racists? Are they bad?
I thought I knew the answer until this week. I had taken the easy road. I did the simple math. Racism is bad. Racist people are bad. Done and done. But then, I was listening to the On the Media podcast. On the Media does good work. It is an enlightening podcast, and I expect it to provide good content. But, sometimes it really surprises me. On a recent episode, the September 15, 2016, episode, there was a discussion about Hillary Clinton's gaffe, when she called Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables." The basket of Trump supporters were deplorable because they were, among other things, racists. A writer from the Atlantic, Ta Nahisi Coates, made an appearance. Mr. Coates is described on Google as a journalist who writes especially about African-American issues. He is African American. His contribution to the podcast can be summed up thusly: There is objective evidence that a significant number of Trump supporters are, in fact, racist. He noted, however, that the same could be said of Hillary Clinton supporters. And then he said, kind of as an aside, (and I'm paraphrasing because I'm too lazy to re-listen to the podcast to get the direct quote) that they could be racists and "good people." My mind was, momentarily, blown. First, the journalist who made the statement was, I thought, bound by liberalism and his own reasonable self-interest to condemn racists. But he didn't. It is possible that he didn't mean it, but I think he did. Second, I was embarrassed. As a Christian, how could I have missed that? How could I have been judging all these people, writing them off as unredeemable racists and wondering how long our nation would have to deal with them.
So, this is a serious topic. One that should be written about more than I have time to devote to it. But in the few minutes I have, let me tell you what I think. There is an easy way to think and a more difficult way. The easy way to think is to let the news and the political system not only frame the issues (tell us what is important), but to tell us the answers. Unsurprisingly, the answers are simple. For the news, the answer is: "the world is dangerous and scary. The information we will provide after the break is the only thing that can save you." The political system says: "the other party is bad, they are out to get you, and the only way to stop them, is to keep them out of power."
My request is this: don't go the easy way. It is easy to write off racists, misogonysts, atheists and others as irreparably broken. Don't do it. Objectifying our neighbors is not going to save us. In fact, the opposite is true. Remember what Mr. Coates said. A racist (or atheist, or gay advocate or muslim or whatever group you find most threatening to your ideological point of view), is your brother or sister. Do you want to save this country? Do you want to make this country stronger and safer? Then unite your neighborhood. You won't unite your neighborhood by making them all stand for the National Anthem. You won't do it by thinking you can make them see it your way. You unite your neighborhood by loving your neighbors. You will be painfully aware of the differences between you and them at the beginning. You may find them somethwat antognistic, at first. But, even if all you can do is regularly deliver them some cookies, you can reach an accord. If neighborhood after neighborhood become strong, then the politicians and the news will lose power and we will be less fearful.
Our nation was conceived as a collection of mini-nations. I think they thought that by uniting smaller countries into a bigger country, the small-scale benefits of the near homogenous conditions in the smaller countries (or states) would persist and be protected against the heterogenous larger country that they would create. This federalist system certainly looks different now than it was intended to when it was first put into practice. However, we need not waste too much time mourning it. We can still have some of those benefits, if we simply unite into smalller, inclusive groups that have no other purpose than to be united. No marches are necessary, no phone campaign or email blast. Just be a group of humans who accepts others as humans too. I think I just made it sound easier than it is. It is worth it, though. Please try it.
Comments